Urs Liska <[email protected]> writes: > Am 22.10.2013 10:33, schrieb Simon Bailey: >> On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Urs Liska <[email protected]> wrote: >>> thanks for your opinion. >>> Obviously it boils down to the statement that leaving the reminder sharp for >>> the gis' is impractical/impolite but not wrong. >> i think david actually made the statement exactly the other way >> around. omitting the reminder sharp may confuse a musician, especially >> with a forced natural at the beginning of the bar. > > Rereading David's post I realize I haven't completely understood him yet. > First he says it's mandatory then cautionary, responding to different > parts of my message. > So obviously I'm still not really clear about it.
Sigh. You first put an example where after a linebreak an accidental is repeat on a tied note. I comment on that. Then you explain that in the original score you are working from, there is no such accidental. I now make a different statement starting with "In that case, ..." Now you are confused that I made two different statements. I have a real problem understanding the source of your confusion. If you change the rules according to which accidentals are typeset in relation to your original score, _obviously_ the situation as a consequence of your changed rules is a different one. That was the whole point of changing the rules. Again: you are making an editorial decision here. There are several valid decisions you can make. The important thing is _documenting_ your decision so that a) the reader knows which pitch to play b) the reader knows what was originally written The latter point is only relevant when doing a critical edition, and particularly relevant when doing an Urtext. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
